Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vakil Kumar Banjara vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22935) on 13 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22935]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3765/2025
1. Vakil Kumar Banjara S/o Shree Raju Banjara, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Dholadata Mandfiya, Gangrar, Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Ankur Ajmera S/o Shree Jagdish Ajmer, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Chanderiya, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Pp
2. Raju Jat S/o Shri Barda Jat,, R/o Rolahera, Chanderiya,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreedhar Purohit
Mr. Ram Sukh Mali
Ms. Shivani Mutha
Mr. Anupam Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
13/05/2025
1. Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned FIR,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a pure civil
dispute between the parties has been given a colour of criminal
offences.
2. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that in the present case, the disputed Power
of Attorney was duly signed by the respondent No.2- complainant
and was duly stamped/ notarised wherein the agricultural lands
were purchased and as such, the allegations of forgery and
cheating are actually false. It was submitted that since the
[2025:RJ-JD:22935] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3765/2025]
impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated
grounds, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that as
per the factual report dated 08.05.2025 received by him from the
office of SHO, P.S. Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh, the
investigation in relation to impugned FIR No.43/2025 lodged at
Chanderiya, District. Chittorgarh has yet not been completed and
the petitioner No.1- Vakil Kumar Banjara despite grant of various
opportunities has not appeared before the investigating officer.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that since the
offences alleged against the petitioners are either triable by a
Court of Magistrate or do not contain the maximum punishment of
more than seven years, therefore, the provisions under Sections
41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. are applicable. It was submitted that in that
view of the matter, the present criminal misc. petition may be
disposed of with a direction to the police authorities to comply
with the provisions under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material as made available to this Court as well as gone through
the niceties of the matter.
6. This Court upon a perusal of the case file prima facie finds
that the offences alleged to have been committed by the
petitioners are either triable by a court of Magistrate and/or do not
contain the maximum punishment of more than seven years, and
keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 41, 41-A
Cr.P.C. as well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported
in AIR 2014 SC 2756, the dictum of which squarely apply
[2025:RJ-JD:22935] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3765/2025]
mutatis mutandis to the present case, it is directed that in case,
the arrest of the petitioners is found to be absolutely necessary by
the Investigating Agencies, instead of affecting the arrest of the
petitioners at once, a prior notice of one month shall be given to
them so that they may exercise their rights. Needless, to say that
the petitioners are not precluded from raising their grievance
before the trial Court.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the misc. petition filed under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) as well as stay application are
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
4-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
